The Instigator
alvarezd41
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
andrewkletzien
Con (against)
Winning
29 Points

Does God exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
andrewkletzien
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/16/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 957 times Debate No: 28276
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (6)

 

alvarezd41

Pro

Clearly your understanding is limited by your belief. I will try to explain as if you were a 5th grader and maybe your intellect can grasp the reality.

Does a creator exist? Clearly the answer is in the question. When god created man we were all created in his image. Meaning that we are much more than a bag of flesh and bones for we are all part of the whole. When you focus on something then it start to exist until then it isn't there. we are all creators and part of the whole. We exist because god exist.
andrewkletzien

Con

At the risk of sounding arrogant, I will respond to your ad hominem arguments without fearing the lack of humility that Christians undoubtedly hold while at the same time clearly displaying. Being the recipent of $350,000+ in college scholarships receiving a 4.0 GPA at one of the top high schools in the country, I have learned despite my diagnoses of mental disabilities that I will allow myself the pride of acknowledging my intelligence, if nothing else.

I would like to simply point out the all-too-common notion that we were created in god's image, when all logical conclusions will lead to the fact that god was created in our image. Theists are constantly left stumped by questions such as why god must be ascribed a sex, why he is vengeful and endorses murder, genocide, slavery, and rape in the Old Testament. I propose there is a very simple answer to that question: because god was created in man's image (and I use the male pronoun intentionally), and not the other way around.

Thousands upon thousands of gods have been created throughout the history of our species, and most of them (with the exception of a few in the Eastern traditon) are anthropomorphized by the same people who will say that god is sexless and impassible. As to why they are created, it is simply because men are scared of uncertainty and doubt. The question of morality without god shows the innate fear of thinking for ourselves and our assumed impossibility of coming up with ethical standards on our own. Creation myths have been made up by almost every civilized society we know of, and Christians would behoove themselves if they read The Enuma Elish and even some of the ancient stories regarding the character of Lilith which provide some sense of the history of texts such as Genesis. (http://faculty.gvsu.edu...) (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

You are correct, that we are much more than a bag of flesh and bones. We are the product of millions of years of evolution which have come to acquire consciousness, prescience, and incredible abilities through technology and industry. But in the end, we are nothing more than mammalian primates. Knowledge of a creator is a claim to a knowledge that no primate can claim to have. That being said, I will recognize the millions of theists that acknowledge evolution as true yet claim it as the way that the creator brought our species into being. It must be asked, then, why this process has left us utterly mentally ill, ever single one of us. It was most easily described by Ruby Wax, a comedian who has spent much time learning about her mental illnesses and others'.The paradox of evolution is that the more we evolve, the less able we are to cope with our surroundings, explaining much of why a creator is claimed to be a self-evident and necessary being. I will summarize:

(http://www.ted.com...)

Evolution did not prepare us for the 21st century, and thus we have clatched on to this hypothesis of eternal life and an eternal moral standard-bearer. You see, when we were beings less evolved than we are now, we would see a predator and naturally fill up with adrenaline. We would kill the predator which made us feel in danger, defuel, and move on. But now, we can't kill the traffic cop that makes us feel in danger, so we still fuel up, but never defuel. We are thus in a constant state of alarm, and we have created deities which provide us some way of coping with this, despite the lack of evidence for such a being. So yes, we are much more than a bag of flesh and bones, we are an incredibly capable species which has suffered the consequences of the imperfect process which has given us these abilities.

In terms of the relation between the part and the whole, you are correct yet are applying this in an inappropriate way. In a sense Zhuangzi came up with the argument Hume introduced into the Western framework which said that we cannot extrapolate from the parts to knowledge of the whole. Zhuangzi put it in terms of our undoubtable limited knowledge being inappropriately extrapolated to conclude knowledge of "the whole," while Hume simply made a more general philosophical argument saying that one cannot move from knowledge of the parts to knowledge of the whole. What has allowed us to make this fallacious argument, however, is the fact that we have anthropomorphized this fictitious god, making it easier for us to claim "knowledge" of this deity because he is simply a divine version of ourselves.

(http://plato.stanford.edu...)
(http://plato.stanford.edu...)

Your emphasis on focusing on something is interesting to me. I find you have become immune to recognizing your own monomania (http://en.wikipedia.org...) with this subject. You are in a sense correct, however, that when a human focuses on something it appears true. However, that is not necessarily because it is true, but is more or less explained by the concept of the law of attraction and our specie's incredible ability to lie to itself. (http://www.amazon.com...)

It was not until the last 300 years (and it really has only been 300) that we have seen a remarkable explosion in scientific advancement that has revealed theism as a coping mechanism indelibly marked by the "stamp of our lowly origin" as Darwin put it.

Simply put, god exists because we exist. My dog does not need god, the racoon eating out of my garbage does not need god, and you must come to recognize that we are more like them than you think. We have only half a chromosome different from our chimpanzee relatives, yet that half a chromosome, while providing incredible abilities such as consciousness, has led us to a place where we latch onto ideas such as eternal life or deities because of our inability to cope with reality (which Freud astutely pointed out as a necessity for our imperfect species). Biologically speaking, it can be said that we continue to latch onto these ideologies because we have been provided adrenal glands that are too large and prefrontal lobes that are too small, leaving us with the inability to rationalize our desires for these deities.

For some additional context, I will quote Chris Hedges, a believer himself who asserts statements I personally disagree with but may be helpful to you: "Faith presupposes that we cannot know. We can never know. Those who claim to know what life means play God. These false prophets -- the Pat Robertsons, the Jerry Falwells and the James Dobsons -- clutching the cross and the Bible, offer, like Mephistopheles, to lead us back to a mythical paradise and an impossible, unachieveable happiness and security, at once seductive and empowering. They ask us to hand over moral choice and responsibility to them. They will tell us they know what is right and wrong in the eyes of God. They tells us how to act, how to live, and in this process they elevate themselves above us. They remove the anxiety of moral choice, the fundamental anxiety of human existence. This is part of their attraction. They give us the rules by which we live. But once we hand over this anxiety and accept their authority, we become enslaved and they become our idols. And idols, as the Bible never ceases to tell us, destroy us."

I hope you can find a way to be mature in your dealings with this debate that you seem to have forgotten in your first round. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
alvarezd41

Pro

Well now that I have your attention, we can begin to discuss the truth that evolution in your understanding is not possible however de-evolution is more real. Meaning what we were once pure all knowing beings and we have de-evolutionised or are in a state of sleep and numbness until we ascend and become one with the whole again.

In order to understand what this means we need to look at it with a wide angle lens and not with a microscope. It is not religion that we are talking about here. All religions have their origins and all are mostly correct. when you say that "But in the end, we are nothing more than mammalian primates. Knowledge of a creator is a claim to a knowledge that no primate can claim to have" Your are absolutely incorrect.

In order to understand we must develop our expanded consciousness. Tap into the whole consiousnes where the real world exist

What does it mean to become more conscious? It is the progressive realization of conscious mastery over your mind.

The challenge is that it takes consciousness to grow consciousness. But you needn’t worry about this because you already have the seed. Think of it like fire. You have a flame, and you want to turn that flame into a huge blaze. How do you do it? You add fuel. The following list includes examples of how you can add fuel to your flame of consciousness to become a raging inferno of consciousness. Well, OK, the analogy sort of falls apart there, but you get the idea.

1. Truth

Truth raises your consciousness. Falsehood lowers it.

First, accept the truth. Whatever you’re afraid to know lowers your consciousness. Step on the scale to see how much you weigh. Have a long talk with your spouse about the status of your relationship. Take a deep look at your career. In every case accept the outcome. Don’t just acknowledge the current status and dismiss it. Really accept it as the truth. Think about what it means for this to be true. Also accept your feelings about the truth, whether you like them or not.

Secondly, speak the truth. If honesty is a challenge for you, it’s because you aren’t being honest enough with yourself. Lies you tell others are shadowed by lies you tell yourself. Take note of those areas where you feel incapable of genuine honesty, and dig deep enough to find out why. You’ll find that you uncover a part of yourself you’ve been unwilling to accept. You don’t lie about the parts of yourself you accept 100%.

The more you’re able to accept and speak the truth, the more conscious you become. Raise your consciousness by uncovering and dumping all traces of falsehood from your life. Allow this to be a gradual process. As your consciousness increases, genuine honesty will come more easily to you.

Yes, there may be consequences when you switch from lies and half-truths to the full truth, but highly conscious people know that crossing that bridge is well worth the effect. A short-term adjustment is nothing compared to the joys of living honestly and openly. It’s so much easier and less stressful to be yourself and allow others to do the same. Not everyone will appreciate the real you, especially if they’ve grown accustomed to a false version, but that won’t matter once you accept and appreciate yourself.

We enter the spiritual, metaphysical, and unconscious dimensions through altered states of consciousness induced by trance, meditation, ecstasy, contemplation of transformative art, possession, psychedelic substance, etc. Our ordinary consciousness is incapable of entering or fully understanding the other realms, since effective understanding requires participation in the reality.

andrewkletzien

Con

I will summarize your arguments:

1. We must look at reality with a wide-angle lens and not a microscope.
2. All religions are mostly correct.
3. Consciousness must be developed and expanded and is not something we are all endowed with by our evolutionary history.
4. Truth raises consciousness, falsehood decreases it.
5. The spiritual, metaphysical, and unconscious dimensions are only realized through altered states of consciousness such as trances, meditation, ecstasy, contemplation, possession, psychedelic substances (drugs).

I will first point out that you responded to none of my arguments, so I will await responses with regard to (1) homo sapiens being created in god's image as opposed to the opposite; (2) the anthropomorphization of god; (3) impact and application of the history of creation stories; (4) the possibility of highly capable and complex beings as a result of billions of years of evolution by natural selection; (5) the role and scope of mental illness and imperfection with regard to certainty and doubt on beliefs in deities; (6) the inability of our species to take general knowledge of the partial and extrapolated to knowledge of the "whole;" (7) the monomania of insisting on answers, answer, answers; (8) the role of the law of attraction within consciousness on any particular individual's insistence on a belief in a deity; (9) the role that the scientific and technological revolution has had on developing our understanding of the origins of the universe; (10) the refusal to accept uncertainty and "the fundamental anxiety of human existence" by those who would prefer to find absolute authority in religious texts and institutions.

In response, (1) you provide no reason why a wide-angle lens is the only appropriate form of inquiry nor why both specific and general angles can be used simultaneously; (2) This is a debate forum, so I suggest you provide reasons why most religions are correct rather than simply asserting this and expecting us to take your word for it; (3) Every living human being is equipped with consciousness (yes, even Paris Hilton) and you must provide reason to believe consciousness is a transformative aspect of our psyche instead of something which engages in the appropriate application of the facts of our cosmos; (4) Whether someone believes a truth or a lie does not impact the level of consciousness of that individual, which once again if you wish to argue to the contrary, you must provide evidence for rather than a simple unsubstantiated assertion of your assumption; (5) I will address this below, but you must provide reason to believe that these aspects of the human experience are accurate in ascribing certain factual claims to objective reality as it exists. In other words, you must make an effort to legitimize a posteriori articles of faith rather than, once again, insisting we accept your assumptions.

Positive Evolutionary Change is Impossible, while De-Evolution is Possible
You must provide a reason for this. You have simply stated and asserted what you have been asked to prove. You must address why enormous technological change has been made to create a society of greater efficiency can be labeled as not contributing to "positive" cognitive and intellectual evolution. You must somehow (I can think of no conceptual way you can at this point in time) refute the incredibly large majority of distinguished biologists, physicists, chemists, philosophers, and anthropologists who have come to the conclusion that evolution by natural selection is an observable fact of our universe. To find the enormous number of facts you must dispute, I will provide the following:

From Linus Pauling, Nobel Prize Winning scientist:

1. You must counter the fossil record.
2. You must counter the "chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms."
3. You must counter the "geographical distribution of related species."
4. You must counter the "recorded genetic changes of related species."

You must further explain the following list of 10 of the signs of evolution's accuracy:

1. Goose bumps (Curtis Anserina), a reaction to cold which has been proved to be entirely unnecessary after the processes evolution has caused us to undergo. It can be compared to the appendix, which we are born with but ultimately have come to no longer need.
2. Jacobson's Organ, an organ within our nose that detects pheromones that has become entirely useless with the modern development of our species.
3. Junk DNA, genetic structures which were once used to produce enzymes which allowed us to process Vitamin C, which has since mutated and become a useless part of the human genome.
4. Wisdom teeth, which at one time allowed our larger mouths to operate more efficiently, until our mouths grew smaller and our diets changed making these extra molars unnecessary.
5. Darwin's point (Plica Semilunaris), which at one point allowed us to focus sounds but is now only found in roughly 10% of the human population due to its innecessity.
6. The Coccyx, or what was once the tail that humans had but since has become unnecessary since we stopped swinging from trees, which now is solely used for muscular support.
7. As noted previously, the Appendix, which serves no function in the human body but was once used to better process glucose when our diets were composed mostly of leaves.

(http://listverse.com...)

The argument you have made in round 2 resembles a rough draft of a self-help book aimed at raising awareness. Your arguments in no way, shape, or form point to the existence of a deity.

The Impact of Truth and Falsehood on Consciousness
You seem to have fallen into the trap of what I call the insistence on a strict dichotomous spectrum. There is the conscious, the unconscious, and the subconscious. You fail to recognize the importance of the subconscious and its great ability for us to absorb bits of information (often propaganda) without recognizing we have absorbed it.

You have also conducted the falsehood of shooting before aiming for the target. You have simply and arbitrarily denoted anti-evolutionist propaganda and theism as the truth, and instead of proving why it is the truth, engaged with such authoritarian phrases such as "accept the truth."

It would greatly improve your own consciousness to read People of the Lie by M. Scott Peck, who himself being a Christian recognized the real menace that is our species consistent projection of dishonesty onto others. I must also take this opportunity to get a little personal, and if you wish to deduct "points" for such, be it as it may. I am a gay man, and came to recognize this when I was around 8 years old. I did not come out of the closet until 17. This has instilled in me a great appreciation for what you seem to think is the intentional process of internal dishonesty. I would urge you to learn about things you speak of before making broad assumptions about such sensitive and personal topics of which you have no apparent experience.

The role of trances, meditation, ecstasy, contemplation, drugs, etc. on truth.
The role of these things on our brains is enormous. However, you must realize that if I see a pink elephant in my apartment when on LSD, it does not mean that the pink elephant actually exists. You seem to lack the ability to discern the role of these things on the truth claims of reality. You run the risk of becoming increasingly dependent on the relativization of truth into the individual, something that is useless on a form aimed at providing evidence of the origins and purpose of our species as a collective unit.

I will wait for you to respond to (or actually read if you haven't already) the arguments I have made. And I urge you to engage in proving and providing evidence for the arguments you make instead of simply asserting them and saying anyone who doesn't agree with them just can't "accept reality." By doing so you are engaging in the worst form of personal relativization.
Debate Round No. 2
alvarezd41

Pro

I applaud you for trying but your thinking is so 3 dimensional, In order to understand the existence of god we must try thinking outside the box.

We are multidimensional beings therefore to understand we must think in such. Just because your 3 dimensional eyes can't see something it doesn't mean it isn't there. It just means your not seeing it.

Recently scientist have discovered that the so called junk DNA is not junk at all. our DNA holds the key to all creation. ENCODE has revealed that some 80% of the human genome is biochemically active. "What is remarkable is how much of [the genome] is doing at least something. It has changed my perception of the genome," says Ewan Birney, ENCODE"s lead analysis coordinator from the European Bioinformatics Institute.

Read more: http://healthland.time.com...

The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a supposed ape-like ancestry.

Even if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and fully-formed.

Another problem is how could partially-evolved plant and animal species survive over millions of years when their basic organs and tissues were still in the process of evolving? How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if there respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still evolving?

Evolutionists claim that the genetic and biological similarities between species is evidence of common ancestry. However, that is only one interpretation of the evidence. Another possibility is that the comparative similarities are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all the various forms of life. Every living thing has chromosomes. They are essential for life, since they carry our DNA. Moreover, since all types of animals are different, no two species has the same types or amount of chromosomes in their cells.

Creation is by definition a divine miracle, an act of God which is outside of and above the physical laws He has established in the world. Therefore, scientists who believe in creation do not try to devise theories to explain how God created, for human beings cannot understand how God created. On the other hand, evolutionary scientists say that they are devising theories to explain the evolution of all life and that they are discovering natural processes or mechanisms which can evolve new plants and animals. So we say to them, "The burden of proof is on you. Come on, now, give us theories which really explain evolution, and show us the natural mechanisms or processes which can produce new designs and evolve new plants and animals."

Has evolutionary theory really explained evolution? No. Have they discovered any mechanism or process of genetics which can evolve anything really new. No, they have not. And, as long as this failure of evolutionary science continues, divine special creation continues to be an intellectually and scientifically viable belief for anybody, including scientists, to hold.

If you truly want to understand creation you should strive to open your mind to other possibilities and look within yourself. Consider the miracle of a flower. What is it that causes a plant to flower? Does sunshine cause a plant to flower? Does lots of water? Or is it good soil? Maybe all of these together? Or is there really something more subtle in the nature of the flower itself that causes it to flower? Is it something in the DNA of the plant? Does that mean the whole process of evolution over eons of time is involved? What other factors might cause the flowering? Does gravity play a part? The season and the temperature? The quality of the light? (Some plants will not flower under glass or artificial light.) What about animals that eat the fruit and spread the plant? Or the birds or bees that pollinate the flower? Do they cause the subsequent flowering of the newly established plants? Are there even subtler influences? What about presence and love? The intention and attention of a gardener? And is the existence of the world of form itself necessary for a plant to flower? And what about consciousness? Is there an ultimate force that directs the creation and unfolding of all expressions of form that is behind the appearance of a rose or a daisy?

Read More What if it is a combination of all of the things mentioned? And also what if they have to all be in the right proportion? Is that proportion different for every species of plant? Some plants need lots of water or light to flower. Others will die with too much water or light. There is a unique formula that is involved with the appearance of the simplest apple blossom and the most complex orchid.

When you consider all of these influences and even more that were not mentioned or can't even be known or imagined, then it truly is a miracle when a flower happens. It is impossible to say what causes it to happen with any certainty or completeness. Yet, it's an act of incredible grace whenever all of these diverse, subtle, and gross influences come together in just the right way for an iris or a bird of paradise to open its unique petals to the sky. Ultimately, if you trace all the factors back to all their causes, you find that everything that exists is somehow intimately connected to the cactus flower or dandelion in your front yard. We need a vague and powerful word like "grace" to name this amazing interplay of forces and intelligence. Obviously, to reduce it to a formula doesn't come close to capturing or describing the vast richness of variables and forces at play. There is no formula complex enough to capture the whole mystery of a magnolia blossom...

Spiritual awakening is a kind of flowering of consciousness. When consciousness expands and opens into a new expression, we call that a spiritual awakening. And while there are as many kinds of awakenings as there are flowers, they are all equally mysterious. What is it that causes a child to start to awaken to the nature of words and language? What causes the awakening of sexuality in a teenager? How does one suddenly know they are falling in love? Or even more profoundly, how does one explain the birth of unconditional or divine love?

Finally, what are the causes of the most profound spiritual awakenings, where consciousness suddenly recognizes its ultimate true nature? Why does that type of flowering appear in one consciousness today and another one tomorrow? If the formula for a simple petunia is a vastly complex interplay of earthly, human, and even cosmic forces, then imagine how complex the formula is for the unfolding of a human consciousness into full spiritual enlightenment as one's true nature. The good news is that we cannot and do not need to know the totality of the formula involved to grow some petunias, and we cannot and do not need to know the formula for spiritual enlightenment. Yet, we can be curious about all of the factors involved and even play with them to see what effects, if any, they may have in our individual experience of consciousness unfolding.

Peace and love be with you.
andrewkletzien

Con

I will first note your continued lack of responsiveness to most of my arguments: (1) homo sapiens being created in god's image as opposed to the opposite; (2) the anthropomorphization of god; (3) impact and application of the history of creation stories; (4) the possibility of highly capable and complex beings as a result of billions of years of evolution by natural selection; (5) the role and scope of mental illness and imperfection with regard to certainty and doubt on beliefs in deities; (6) the inability of our species to take general knowledge of the partial and extrapolated to knowledge of the "whole;" (7) the monomania of insisting on answers, answer, answers; (8) the role of the law of attraction within consciousness on any particular individual's insistence on a belief in a deity; (9) the role that the scientific and technological revolution has had on developing our understanding of the origins of the universe; (10) the refusal to accept uncertainty and "the fundamental anxiety of human existence" by those who would prefer to find absolute authority in religious texts and institutions.

I will begin by pointing out that Pro has admitted to only 80% of our DNA serving a purpose, and he has failed to give a reason for the other 20% of junk DNA.

On Evolution
You have grossly misrepresented the facts of evolution by natural selection. Gradual improvement within a species does not mean that any one particular organism is non-functioning. It simply means that those who are wired as wired to be stronger, faster, etc. (whatever adaptation is best for the environment in which they are found) will reproduce and eventually "beat out" the lesser creatures of their own species. It does not mean, however, that those with sub-par wiring (any biology students, please forgive my probably incorrect terminology with "wiring," as I am primarily a humanities student, but you get the jist) are not able to function.

In a sense, some particular species are less further evolved, but that in no way means they cannot breathe, digest, reproduce, etc. It comes down to the advantages natural selection has provided the species in the process thus far. (http://www.amazon.com...)

I feel you have also confused a major part of evolution which is our species insistence on certain characteristics of the cosmos being intrinsically "designed" for our benefit. Chocolate cake is not sweet in and of itself. Glucose under a microscope gives no way of seeing it as sweet. Instead, we have evolved to prefer sweet food for its intrinsic quality of having high energy. The same is true of things that cause sex appeal -- there is nothing intrinsically "sexy" about highly-attractive individuals. We have been wired to find certain characteristics as "sexy," and if this weren't the case we would have a hard time seeing apes reproduce. They do, in fact, reproduce because they are wired to find sex appeal in other apes. (http://www.ted.com...)

You have also failed to incorporate Ockam's razor (lex parsimoniae) into your analysis. The fact of the matter is that the genetic similarities between species can be attributed to a process that does not require a designer. As Laplace said when giving his model of the solar system in court when asked where the "intelligent designer" was, he simply replied "It functions without that assumption." (http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_razor)

"Creation" as a Divine Miracle
A miracle must be defined as a suspension of the natural order. Those who claim that the big bang or evolution are miraculous in and of themselves have twisted this definition. What is natural, and what comes about by natural processes, cannot be defined as miraculous (the suspension of that very same nature).

You are correct, that the burden of proof is on those who agree with evolution. Until you actually read Darwin, until you look at the astounding amount of evidence which has been collected and agreed upon by a enormous majority of scientists, I would suggest not claiming it is false. It also comes down the the unfalsifiability of an argument or theory. Evolution can conceptually be easily disproved. Many have pointed out that all it would take is finding a rabbit in the pre-Cambrian. However, it has not happened. There is not one shred of substantial evidence against evolution.

Looking "Within Yourself" to understand Truth of "Creation"
You have once again failed to give reason to believe that understanding of parts of the whole can be extrapolated to understand the whole in its entirety. Your discussion of a flower shows that there are numerous things that go into a flower's growth, but alas none of them point to a creator. None of them point to a status of miraculousness, either, in that what you described are all natural processes, and thus cannot be defined as something which is defined as the suspension of the natural order. Arguments to the contrary are twisting definitions of words and using rhetorical trickery.

We know how to grow a flower -- we can create mass amounts of crops because we have come to understand the process quite well. Again, read up on agricultural technology. That should answer many of the questions which you posit and seem to assume we, as a species, don't have an answer to.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by andrewkletzien 3 years ago
andrewkletzien
Severe anxiety, formerly severe depressive disorder, and the most influential Borderline Personality Disorder. But as Hemingway said, "Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know."
Posted by DeFool 3 years ago
DeFool
"Mental disabilities" have been diagnosed to Con.

I wonder what he could possibly be diagnosed with - I cannot help but speculate that Asperger's might be the culprit. Whatever, there can be no doubt that this person can think very well indeed.
Posted by andrewkletzien 3 years ago
andrewkletzien
Brene Brown's work also provides a look into our need to figure everything out in an attempt to remove what Hedges identified as the fundamental anxiety: http://www.ted.com....
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 3 years ago
jh1234l
alvarezd41andrewkletzienTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has debated evolution, which is off topic and also has used bare assertions, so arguments goes to con. Sources also go to con because pro only used one source, which disproves evolution but does not fullfill his bop.
Vote Placed by GorefordMaximillion 3 years ago
GorefordMaximillion
alvarezd41andrewkletzienTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: pro's arguments don't really make sense. Con far out-argues and out sources pro. S&G errors from pro also. No contest. I could award conduct to con, but I don't want to be accussed of a vote bomb.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 3 years ago
TrasguTravieso
alvarezd41andrewkletzienTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: (This is not a vote-bomb. I legitimately believe Con deserves the 7 points in this debate) Conduct - To be patronizing when the person you are speaking to can dance circles around you is a bad idea. Sp/Gr - Con without a doubt Arguments - Con again, in spite of my bias against him in this issue his arguments were obviously superior to his opponent's Sources - Pro kind of throws one in in the last round, but Con quite consistently backed up his assertions
Vote Placed by DeFool 3 years ago
DeFool
alvarezd41andrewkletzienTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I have awarded a full 7-point decision in this case, and for very good reasons. Pro failed to maintain focus on his own resolution, made repeated S&G errors, committed a number of logical fallacies, relied on insults rather than logic, and ignored sourcing (I see the link). This was set against Con, who presented his argument in clear, almost elegant (if at times pedantic), language. Well researched, well reasoned and calm, Con faced no challenge in this contest.
Vote Placed by t-man 3 years ago
t-man
alvarezd41andrewkletzienTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not make an argument that proved anything.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
alvarezd41andrewkletzienTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: I got to the first sentence in the debate, and concluded that PRO is trolling.